,justification: T!lis recorninendation closes Fort Monroe .../67531/metadc24979/m2/1/high... ·...

ich --

on

,justification: T!lis recorninendation closes Fort Monroe. an administri~tive installation. and Itloves thc tenant Headquartcrs organizations to Fort Eustis and Fort Knos. I t enhances the ~ ~ ~ 1 y ' ~ n~ilitary vuluc, is consistent with the Arniy's Force Structure 131nn. and tnainrains a&qurttc surge capabilities to addrcss future unforeseen reyuiremcnts. The closure allows the ~ m ~ y to move administrative headquarters to multi-purpose i~~stallarions that provide the Anny marc: flexibility ro acccpt ncw missions. Both Fort Eustis and Fort Knos have operational and training capabilities that Fort Morme lacks and both have excess capacity that can be used to accept the organizations relocating from Fort Monroe.

The recommended relocations also retain or enhance vital linkages between them relocating organizations and other hc.i~dqusrters acrivitics, 'I'IIAUOC J-lQs it; moved to Fort Eustis in ordcr to remain within con~n~uring distance of thc Joint Forces Command (JFC'OM) HQs in Norfolk, VA. JFCOM oversees dl joint training across the military. Ih4A and NETCOM HQs are moved to Fort Eustis because of reconimendntions to consolidate the Northeastern and Southeastern regions of thesc two co~nninnds into onc Eastern Region at Fort Eustis. The ACA Northern Region is relocated to Fort Eustis because its two Inrgcst customers arc TRADOC and IMA. The Accessions and Cadet Comcntrnds are relocated to Fort Knos because of rcconmcndations to locate the Anny's Human Resources C o ~ m a n d at Fort Knox. Thc HRC recommendation includes the collocaticrn of the Accessions and Cadet Commands with the Recruiting Command, already ar Fort Knos and creates a Center of Excellence for military personnel and recruiting functions by improving personnel life-cycle management.

Payback: The total estimated anc-tirne cost ro the Dcpnrtmcnt of Defcnsc to implement this reconirnendation is $72.4M. The 11et 01' all costs and savings to the Department of Defense during the implementation period is il saving of $146.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Dopartrrlctnt after implen~cntation arc $%.9M with a payback cspcctcd in 1 year. Tlic net present value of the costs and savings to the Dcparrn~ent over 30 years is a savings of$liS6.6M.

This recotnn~endation affects the U.S. Post Office, a non-DoD Federal agency. In the absence of access to credible cost and savings infarmation for that agency or knowledge regarding whether that agency will remain on the installation, the Department assun~ed that the non-DoD Federal agency will be required to assume new base operating responsibilities on the affccted installation. The Department further assumed that because of these new base operating responsibilities. the effect of the recommendation on the non-DoD agency would be an increase in its costs. As required by Section 29 13(d) of the BRAC statute. the Department has taken the effect on the costs of this agency into account when making this recommendation.

Economic Impact on Communities: as sum in^ no cconomic reco~w-y. this recon~n~endation could rcsult in a rn:lsin~uni r)otelitial reduction oS3.275 jobs ( 1 .O 13 direct and 1,262 indircct jobs) ovcr the 2006 - 201 1 period in thc Virginill Uc;tch-Norfolk-Ncwport Nckvs, VA-NC' metropolitan statisticnl arm, \~'hich is 0.2 percent ofcconon~ic arca c n ~ p l ~ y n ~ e n t . TIIC aggrcgatc economic impact of all recon~mcndcd actions on this economic region of inf~uencc was considered and is nt Appendix 13 of VoIun~e I .

Community Inft-astlwture Asscssment: A review of comnlunity attributes revealed no significant issucs regarding thc ability of the intiastructure of the con~n~unities to support missions. forces, and p c r s o n ~ ~ ~ l . W11en moving from Fort Monroc to Fort Eustis. the ibllowing local area capnbilitics improved: Child Care, Population and Transportation. Mihen moving fkom Fort Monroc to Fort Knox, tlic following local ares capabilities in~provcd: Child Care. Cost of Li\:ing, Education and Safcry. The fdlowing cnpabilitics arc not as robust: Employment and Medical. Tl~erc are no known community infrastructure impediments m implementation of all recommendations affecting the installations in this recommend~t' c 1011.

Environmental Impact: Closure of Fort Monroe will ncccssit:zre consultations wit11 the State Historic Prcscrv;~tion Oftice to ensure that historic properties arc continued to be protected. Increased aperation:~l d c l u j ~ and costs arc likcly at Fort Knos in ardcr to preserve cultural rcsourccs and trib:il ~ o n s ~ ~ l t a t i o ~ i s niay bc I I C C C S S ~ I - ~ . An Air C'onfi?rmity dtterrnination and h'c\\, Sourcc Review and pesnitting effort will he required at Fort Eustis. Significant mitigation measures to limit rcleascs may be required ;it Fort Eustis to reduce in~pacts to watcr quality and ilchievc US EPA water quality standards. This recon~mendation will require spending approximately X3.OM for cnvironmcnral compliance acti14ics. These costs were included i n the payback calculation. Although no restomtion costs \+.ere reported. Fort Monme has a probablc Military Munitions Response Program site that may require some combination of UXO s\vceps, cluar;mcc. nlunition constituent cleanup, remediation, and land use controls. Because the Deparrmcnt has n legal obligation to perform environmental restoration regardless of whether an installation is closcd, realigned. or rcn~ains open no cost for environmental remediate was includcd in the pq,back calculation. This recom~nendation does not othcnvise impact the costs of environmental rcstorurion. M ~ S ~ C ~n;i~~ilgement. and en~ir011111ental complirlnce activities. The aggregate environmental impact of all reco~~lmcl~ded BRAC actions affecting the installations in this recommendation has been reviewed. There are no known environnlental impediments to inlplementation of this recommend~t' lon.

Maneuver Training

Recommendation: Realign Fort Knox, KY. by relocating the Amlor Center and School to Fort Benning, GA. to acconmodate the activation of an Infantry Brigade Combat Team (BCT) at Fort Knox, KY. and the relocation of engineer. military police, and combat service support units from Europe and Korea. Realign Fort McCoy, W1. by relocating the 84th Ammy Reserve Regionit1 Training Center to Fort Knox. KY.

Justification: This recommendation enhances military value. improves training and deployment capabilities, better utilizcs training resources, and creates signiticmt efficiencies and cost s;lvings

Installations: Recommendations Impacting Report Location Installation

Fort Eustis Aviation Logistics School

Combat Service Support Center

Consolidate Transportation Comniand Components Convert Inpatlent Services to Clinics

Create Joint Mobilization S m s

Fort h.lcPlicr.son. GI

Fort Monroe, VA

Joint Basing

Vol I: Part 2 - Education B Training Section Vol 1 : Part 2 - Education S: Training Section Vol I : Part 2 - Headquarters and Support Activities Section Vol 1: Part 3 - Medical Section

Vol 1 : Pall 2 - Headquarters and Support :\cti\.itirs Scction C'ol I : Part 5 - Army Scction

Vol 1 : Part 2 - Army Section

Vol I : Pan 2 - Headquarters and Support Activities Section

Fort Lee

Page

EBT - 5

E&T - 6

H&SA - 31

Med - 12

H&SA - 35

U S A - S

USA - 19

H&SA - 41

Co-locate Miscellaneous OSD. Defense Vol I : Part 2 - Headquarters and Agency. and Field Activity Leased Locations Support Activities Sccrion Combat Service Support Centcr Vol I : Part 2 - Education Er.

Training Section Consulidate Defense Commissary clyency Vol I : Part 2 - Heartquartcrs :lnd Eastern. Mid~cstcrn Rcgi~wal. and Support r\cti\:iticz Section Hopewell. \;A. Offices Joint Center for Consolidated Transpostation Vol I : Part 2 - Education 8 hlanagement Training Training Section Joint Center of Esccllcncc for Culinary Vol 1 : Pan 2 - Education LO(

Training Training Section

Fort Monroe Fort Monroe. VA Vol I : Part 2 - Anny Section

Headquarters Battalion, Headquarters Marine Corps, Henderson Hall Co-locate hliscellancous Air Force Leased Vol 1 : Part 2 - Heatlquarters and Locarions and National Guard Hrudquat-tcrs Suppon Activities Swtion Leased Locations Joint Basing Vol 1 : Part 2 - Headquarters and

Support Activities Section

State

Installation

Vi rg in ia

fl - ~ o r t Monroe

- Leased Space - VA

Defense Supply Center Richmond

' Fort Belvoir

- Fort Lee

Out In Net Gainl(Loss) Net Mission Tota l Action

Mil Civ Mil Civ Mil Clv Con t rac to r D i rec t

Close (1,393) (1,948) 0 0 (1,393) (1,948) (223) (3,564)

CloselRealign (6,199) (15,754) 0 0 (6,199) (1 5.754) (972) (22,925)

Gain 0 (77) 0 83 0 6 0 6

Gain (466) (2,281) 4,537 8,010 4,071 5,729 2,058 11.858

Gain (392) (2) 6.531 1,151 6,139 1,149 56 7.344

Headquarters Battalion, Headquarters Gain 453 206 401 184 Marine Corps. Henderson Hall tangley Air Force Base

Marine Corps Base Quantico

Naval Amphibious Base tittle Creek

N ~ M I Shipyard Norfolk

Naval Station Noriolk

Naval Support Activity Norfdk

Arlington Service Center

Center for Naval Research

Defense Finance and Accounting Service. Arlington

C, Fort €tistis

Naval Air Station Oceana

Naval Medical Center Portsmouth

Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Naval Weapons Station Yorktown

Richmond International Airport Air Guard Station U.S. Marine Corps Direct Reporting Program Manager Advanced Amuhibious Assault

Gain

Gain

Gain

Gain

Gain

Gain

Realign

Realign

Realign

Realign

Realign

Realign

Realign

Realign

Realign

Realign

.-. .

This l is t does not include locations where there were no changes in military or civilian jobs. C-26

Military figures include student load changes.

11 Legend 1 Installation Boundary

I Wetland Area

composiie V ~ W for Fort Monroe

N 5 Mar 04 I I

l\' - 0 0.25 0.5 1 r Miles

Deliberative Document - For Discussion Purposes Only Map Prepared in Support of the DoD lnstallation Do Not Release Under FOIA Visualization Tool (IVT) Program

-- -

Page 1 of 1

Entervia Mercury Bhrd (Rt 258)

1 Bay Breeze Community (lenkr

Phoebus 11

+e Fitness Casemat! A93n Cenier Museum

Chamberlin Old Point Comfori

Fort Monroe Post Commander

-

Page 1 of 2

Colonel F

Fort Monro

Colonel Allmendinger was commi: awarded a Bachelor of Arts degre in 1979.

Early in his career, COL Allmendir (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Kent Infantry Battalion and later, as pl, 1983, he attended the Special FOI assigned to the 7th Special Force! served as a Detachment Commar later, as the Headquarter Headqu

Forces Group (Airborne) until 1989. From 1989 until 1991, he serve (U.S.) Corps and as Operations Officer for the VI I Corps TAC in Sau Desert Shield and Desert Storm. I n 1991 he returned to Fort Leave1 operations officer in the Center for Army Tactics.

I n 1993, COL Allmendinger returned to Fort Bragg, where he was a! Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne) and later, as the 53 1

Group (Airborne). From June 1995 until June 1997, he served as an Division, 33, Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, D. C. Fr Allmendinger commanded the Garrison at Hunter Army Airfield, Sab the G3 Operations Officer, U.S. Army Special Forces Command at FI Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Base Operations Support (TRADC 2002. On June 27, 2002, COL Allmendinger took over as the new G'

Colonel Allmendinger is a graduate of the Infantry Officer Basic and Command and General Staff College, Armed Forces Staff College, a1 holds a Masters of Strategic Studies degree from the Army War Coll

Colonel Allmendinger's awards and decorations include the Bronze 5 Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with four Oak Leaf Clusters, Joint Medal with four Oak Leaf Clusters, Joint Achievement Medal, Army I Clusters, Southwest Asia Service Medal, SaudiIKuwait Liberation ME Liberation Medal (Kuwait), Joint Meritorious Unit Award, Army Supe Badge, Master Parachutist Badge, Air Assault Badge, Pathfinder Bac

TRADOC Homepage Page 1 of 2

Year-round voting information for Soldiers (I) and family members

For FOlA details, click on "Help" page

~ .-

Rangers faked kicks and rolled with the punches to make the combatives demonstration look real. (Photo by Bridgett Siter, The

Bayonet)

If you'd like to receive the latest releases of TRADOC News Service via email, please drop us a note.

ieminder: Refresh your TRADOC Webpages frequently using ZTRL F5 on your keyboard. Hold down the control button, then hit -5 at the top of your keyboard.

=or Fort Monroe adverse weather information, see the post Website.

)OD recommendations to move headquarters, :onsolidate 7 TRADOC schools 'he Defense Department's 2005 base realignment and closure ecommendations released this morning have two major acurring themes: consolidation to achieve military value, and oint usage. Consolidation will combine seven U.S. Army 'raining and Doctrine Command centers and schools. while

NER Home Page Page I of 1

> Home

Instahtion Management Agency

Fort Nonroe, Virginia

-

1111 - - - - - . - - .

Homeland Security Advisory - -

Director Page 1 of 1

Northern Region (ACA NR)

E : TI;

FO

Mission and - Visb_on -- Master Contracts ACA NR Organization Newsletters

(I Contacts N u m b e ~ ml icv Letters

Contractina Offices Reference Library

Shnall Business Disclaimer Section 508 Security and _Pavacy --

lnformatiu~._ - Tool box

Questions or Comment About This Site

United States Army Accessions Command - USAAC Page 1 of I

Command Information Organizational Chart Resource Center

"From First Handshake to First Unit Assigned"

The US. Army Accessions Command (USAAC) was established by general order on 15 February 2002. It is a subordinate command of T charged with providing integrated command and control of the recruiting and

initial military training for the Army's officer, warrant officer, and enlisted Designed to meet the human resource needs of the Army from first ake to first unit of assignment, the command transforms volunteers

into soldiers and leaders for the Army.

Site last updated U5i102005

NEW! Ent

PRIVACY NOTICE: This United Slates Army Accessions Command Web Site is provided as a public service I' Army Accessions Command (USAAC) and the Department of the A m y . These links are p with the stated purpose of this and other DoD web sites.

USJFCOM: About the Joint Warfighting Center and the Joint Training Directorate Page 1 of 4

Joint Training Directorate and Joint Warfighting Center (J7/JWFC) - USJFCOM's Joint Warfighting Center (JWFC) leads joint warfighter capability improvement through joint training. With emphasis on the Global War on Terrorism and military transformation, the JWFC works to ensure that America's military is the most advanced and powerful force in the world. The military will maintain this level of superiority through strengthening and developing new capabilities and changing the way forces are trained - all supporting a new warfighting strategy.

"...new equipment can catalyze new behavior and make new tactics possible, and that's laudable. But it's the behavior that counts - new tactics, new processes, new doctrine, new organizational structures, new information flows. That's where the transformation is, and i t all involves people advancing new ideas ... " -- Arthur K. Cebrowski, US: Department of Defense, Former Director of Force Transformation

Whether for an immediate mission rehearsal such as in Operation Iraqi Freedom or for strengthening a combatant command's overall readiness, joint training provides for a solid footing in real-world operations.

Transforming Training The JWFC commander serves as the joint force trainer to ensure the fidelity and coordination of the military's overall joint training efforts. From the JWFC facility located in Suffolk, Va., the joint force trainer team and its partners revise the content and execution of training, developing advanced technologies and reshaping the overall training environment to better prepare combatant command staffs, joint task forces and the individual services (Army, Navy, Air

Contact Us

Match ALL words

Search

Transformation

Fotce Provider

joint Trains

Integration .& Requirements

W t m e n t a t i o n

Reserve & Command Support t

(Summary I

L Learn More

Director's BIO

Deputv Director's Bio

Standmq Jornt Force Headquarters_Core EIemeQ

joint Multi-Resolution Model (JMRM)

JLVFC History

joint National Trarnrnq Capability

Exercise Support - Somt Event Managcrnent Informatron System UEMIS)

Pinnacle

Capstone

Kevstorie

Doctrine Support

Partnersh~g for Peace (PfP) -

Lessons Learned

Modelinq arid S i rn~~ la t~ons --

Joint Integrated Database Preparation System UIDPS]

Distr rbuted Learning

Joint Theater Level Simulat~ons (JTLS)

Joint Taraetinq School

3oint Conflict and Tactrcal Slmulatron (JCATS)

lolnt Systcms Integration Command

Joint Urban Operat~oiis

Iri-te-roperabilrty and Requrrements

Jornt Exper~mentat~on

Vwttng Joint Forces Command

(these sites will open in a

JCS Link

Iomt Doctrine

Joint Task Force Civil Support Page 1 of 4

Plissiotl

Fact Sheet

Leadership

Core Principles

Legal Basis

Operational Focus

FAQ

Reserve Vacancies

Reidled Links

Command

Top Stories

Press Release:

Protecting America's Critical Infrastructure -- Chemical Security: A Fact Sheet Department of Homeland Security

30 APR 2005 -- The Department has established a significant Federal role in the chemical sector by creating on-going cooperative relationships with chemical facility owners and operators and their related associations. The Department has completed assessments and made recommendations to all of the chemical facilities that have the potential to affect more than half a million of their local surrounding population. The facility owners and operators as well as DHS have made considerable investments to enhance physical security at each facility by adopting numerous Homeland Security recommendations that include strengthening buffer zones, improving access control, implementing detection technologies, and increasing response preparedness capabilities.

Vulnerability assessments are underway for the nearly 300 sites that could potentially affect more than 50,000 of local surrounding populations. To date, DHS officials have engaged these sites on more than 110 occasions by conducting a variety of assessments. The Department

Wreath laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlirigton, Va, Photo by Lt. Cot. Gus Schalkl-iarn, USAF

Past Headlines

Bria. Gen. Davis Represents Chairman of Joint Chiefs at Tomb of the Unknown Soldier

TOPOFF 3 Exercisina National Preparedness

DeDartment of Homeland Security Announces Partnership with the United Kinadom and Canada for TOPOFF 3

DoD Official Outlines Homeland Defense Prosress

Deoartment of Homeland Security Announces $91.3 Million in Buffer Zone Protection Proaram Grants

California to Establish Six Homeland Defense Teams

USNORTHCOM and NGB Joint TasLForce - State Conference Held

Measures Abroad, Stateside Protect Aaainst Terrorist Threat

LTG Joseph Inae Visits JTF-CS

TSA and Technoloay: Workina Better Toaether for you

Declared Disasters & Assistance

News Archive

- -- -. -

902nd MI Group Page 1 of 2

9 0 2 ~ Military I n telligenc 3 0 8 ~ Military Intelligence E

Alpha Company Fort Monroe Resident 0 Bldg 21 7,146 Bernard i

Ft Monroe, Virginia

The 9 0 2 ~ M I Group protects our nations forces, critic, detecting, neutralizing, exploiting, and defeating Fore,

What the 9 0 2 ~ M I Group doe2

* Suvvort to Force Protection Tailored CI Team Packages Full Suite of CI Capabilities Split-Based Analytical Operations CI Support to SOF & Special Mission Units

* Counterintelliqence Education Technical CI School Advanced CI Skills Training SAEDA Training Non-Traditional Threat Briefings

* Counterintelliqence Operations CI Surveys Vulnerability Assessments CI Special Operations

* Analvsi Regio~ Foreig Techn Count

* Counte Espior Comp Delibe

* Technic Comp Surve Techn Polygr

What you can do for the L

Report the following activity which could be an indical activity:

- Surveillance -- Someone recording or monitoring military cameras, note taking, drawing diagrams, writing maps, or u: enhancing devices.

The US Continental Army Band Page 1 of 1

NTERACTIVE PUBLIC PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE Ne have improved our performance schedule to include links to ~erforming groups and performance information. Try out the most :omprehensive, up-to-date performance schedule available on the nternet.

4RMY BANDS ONLINE Jisit the NEW! Army Bands Online, your complete resource guide to nformation about United States Army Bands. There you will find links o all US. Army Band websites, historical information, and contact nformation updated daily!

Schedules

.Re-que_St..The..Ba.n.d. Request Tickets

Concert Band -

Jazz Band Rock Band_ Dixieland Band Brass Quintet Woodwind Quintet Clarinet Quartet Jazz Combo

RECORDING Here's to America Leuacy To a New Dawn To The Fallen ... New Frontiers Tradewinds Spirit of Victory March Along

CONTACT Public Affairs -- Band Roster Career O~en inus U.S. Army Home~aae Securitv Notice Alumni Page Webmaster

HOME PERFORMANCES ENSEMBLES RECORDINGS CONTACT

Last Updated:

Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)

Search our site for ... Go

Page 1 of 1

The Agency

About DCMA Welcome to the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

The Director We are an independent combat support agency within the Department of Defense Department's contract manager, responsible for ensuring Federal acquisition progr

Mission, Vision, & Goals services are delivered on time, within cost and meet performance requirements. Our Values

Services We Provide

Plant Clearance (PCARSS]

eTools

Electronic Invoicing

NO FEAR Act Data

Contact Us

CAS Directory

I Telework Portal

I Login to DCMA lntranet

Click_he_refo DCMA's Web-bast

Headquarters 1 East I West I International

Standard Agency Screen Resolution is 1024 x 768 1 Contact Webrnastc

Fort Monroe's Casemate Museum Page 1 of 1

Features

Casemate Museum ----

Fort Manrae History ----

Coast Artillery Corps History ---""

Civil War Trails ----

Virtual Museum Tour ----

Museum Foundation ----

Faun

Other Links

The History ----

Peninsula Museums Forum ----

Fort Monroe ----

Vi m

Administration

---- Comments/Feedback

---- Security Information

Fort Monroe's

e e Tuesday, May 17, 2005

The Casemate Museum PO Box 51341

Fort Monroe, Va 23651-0341 (757)-788-339 1

Fax: (757)-788-3886

The Casemate Museum is open from 10:30 AM to 4:30 PM, 7 days per week. Admission is free and the facility is handicapped accessible.

The Museum is closed New Years Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.

Guided tours for pre-formed groups of 10 or more (school groups grade 3 and above) are available with a two-week notice.

Call (757)-788-3391 for information!

- - - -- - - - -- --

Home 1 Fort Monroe History f Virtual Tour 1 Museum Staff I Comments

Last updated: October 2, 2000

Candidate # USA-01 13 I

Candidate Recommendation: Close Ft. Monroe, VA. Relocate the US Army Training & Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Headquarters, the Installation Management Agency (IMA) Northeast Region Headquarters, the US Army Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM) Northeast Region Headquarters and the Army Contracting Agency Northern Region Office to Ft. Eustis, VA. Relocate the US Army Accessions Command and US Army Cadet Command to Ft. Knox, KY.

-- -

Justification 4 Ft. Monroe has a Low Military Value

J Ft. Monroe is an administrative installation with limited flexibility to accept other missions

4 Co-locates and consolidates Ft. Monroe HQs organizations with similar organizations at installations with greater capabilities

Pay back 4 One-Time Cost:

4 Net Implementation Savings:

4 Annual Recurring Savings:

J Payback Period:

4 NPV (Savings):

$72.4M

$1 47.OM

$56.9M

1 Year

$686.6M

4 Strategy 4 Capacity Analysis I Data Verification

J COBRA 4 Military Value Analysis / Data Verification

Military Value 4 Increases Military Value by moving from a low ranking

installation to higher ranking installations

J Ft. Monroe (68), Ft. Eustis (33), Ft. Knox (12)

J HSA Major Admin HQs Military Value ranks Ft. Monroe 1 04th, Ft. Eustis 46th & Ft. Knox 32nd

lm~acts J Criterion 6 - Max potential reduction of 2,275 jobs (1,013

Direct & 1,262 Indirect) or less than 0.1 % of the total ROI employment

J Criterion 7 - Of the 10 attributes evaluated only one decreases significantly (Employment when moving to Ft. Knox)

J Criterion 8 - Air analysis required (Eustis); potential CultIArch resource issues (Eustis); UXO remediation (Monroe)

4 JCSG Recommended 4 De-conflicted w1JCSGs

4 Criteria 6 8 Analysis 4 De-conflicted wlServices

Before lntegration

USA-01 13 I Close Ft. Monroe I HSA-0006 1 HRC to Knox I HSA-0033 I Langley/Eustis/Monroe (USAF Pri) I $6,328 1 ($21 3,839) 1 HSA-0057 ITRADOC to Eustis I $78.323 1 ($78.806) 1 HSA-0077 I MA-ACA-NETCOM Colocation $98,876 ($277,373)

Total $51 1,533 ($3,234,319) I

After lntegration USA-01 13R I close Ft. Monroe 1 $72,396 1 ($686,602)

I Total I $72,396 1 ($686,602) 1 Closes Fort Monroe Eliminates 1 CRs; Revises 3 CRs

Transforming Through Base Realignment and Closure

Fort Knox Realign

(Arm y-115) (HBSA-46) (HBSA-33)

MII +5 Civ +56 MII +619 CIV +?I75 (Contr +326) MtI +90 CIV +I85 MII +30 CIV +13/ \ Total +275 \ Total +43 Total +61 Total +3120

Net Mil -5479 Net Civ -621 Net Total -61 00

'..

4 Mi1 +2713 Civ +I923 Mil 0 Civ -11

Total -1 1 Total -2944

\

- Correctional Facs (HISA-22) 0

Mil -98 Civ -7 Total -105

- Clinics

Mil -34 Civ -51 (Contr -142) Total -227

Turner Comments 053005: DFAS KC and STL, HRC-STL and Ft. Knox

1. DFAS Leased Space: Can I assume that the Denver, Indianapolis, and Columbus DFAS are located in non-leased buildings? It puzzles me why the St. Louis DFAS complex in particular (Level 4 ATIFP and Level 1 building quality) would be closed, other than it occupies leased space. It also puzzles me that the services would be thrilled about losing their service-specific DFAS, unless, the remaining 3 DFAS retain a service-specific focus. This type question kept coming up: "Why is DOD's desire to shift cost to the GSA by moving out of leased space a good reason to upset the lives of loyal workers?" I had the impression in Kansas City from GSA rep that they would llkely dump that building if DFAS moves out vs. put money into it to meet the AT/FP standards if their big tenant leaves, further depressing the local economy. 2. HRC-STL: The HRC-STL is also puzzling to me. This is an excellent building, albeit leased. Given that the commanding General at Arlington DFAS seems to have intended to move most of Arlington and all of HRC-Indianapolis to HRC-St Louis, helthe Army must have thought that was a good idea pre- BRAC. The proximity to the records archives should be mission-positive but apparently not. Regarding the IT issues. At Ft. Knox, I asked the post/garrison commander about trunk lines and he said "No problem". He pointed out an attractive multi-story complex that might become the new HRC home.

3. Ft Knox - Medical: Medical downsizing at Ft. Knox raises some issues. The commander commented on issues with TriCare coverage for active dutyldependent obstetric care. The closest OB care is a hike. The road we took back to the airport is, in part, the road to the OB hospital and I found it a very uncomfortable ride, especially for a woman in labor and more so if there is a traffic accident on the Interstate. Unless the manpower standards have changed, OB deliveries would not be covered under the ambulatory care standard when inpatient services close. Given that a new infantry battalion will bring in lots of young permanent party (read babies), the OB rate could go up from the present 401mo. The TriCare 40 mile radius could be an issue because young families tend to live in the opposite direction from the civilian hospital. I asked if they had considered a "Birthing Center" concept with their OB docs and midwives for normal pregnancies. Even though usual the OB stay is 2 days, a 23 hour stay might do (especially if the midwives did home visits) and might be allowable under the amb care standard as it's less than a 24 hr inpatient day. Even ERs are allowed to extend the 23 hr stay to a 48 hour stay for extreme/unusual circumstances, so the thought had occurred to them but no one knew the answer. I asked them to pass any new information along that could help OB needs at Ft Knox and elsewhere where similar populations and issues exist. Disclaimer: I am in no way a manpower standard expert!

Medical Response: I asked Gen Taylor at the Medical JCSG presentation "What level of emergency care" would be available for trainees at Lackland when the medical center becomes an amb care service. He gave me a lukewarm answer about imbedded independent duty technicians, but he missed my point ... which was Level I Trauma would no longer be a stone's throw away. While trainee deaths are uncommon, things like rapid responses to heat stroke, for example, must be taken seriously. It seems like most basic training centers are reducing their hospital capabilities. What's the alternative for ER care? At Ft Knox, we were told the "air ambulance choppers" are in large part deployed and not always readily available to transport to local hospitals (which are not all that close). My Point: whoever is doing medical, please look at what downsizing the medical center or hospital to an amb care clinic does to OB and ER coverage. I suspect more than Ft. Knox have valid concerns.

5. Ft Knox MilCon: Mil Con needs were identified to build out the in-coming Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) footprint, perhaps 1.5 x current 100M. Transition from trainee to permanent party requires conversion of open bay barracks to 1+1 barracks. The Regional Correctional Facility (scheduled to close) is partially condemned already. They need to fixhepair now or move 175 avg inmates now and Ft Leavenworth is already packed. I didn't see it but I believe Mr. Skinner did and he may have comments.

6. DFAS-STL: CDOIM is a one-of-a-kind, trouble-shooting technical support team for the SOMARDS. Half of the team resides at Rock Island DFAS. Any idea where these legacy talents will end up? Hopefully, it's together. Until SOMARDS is replaced, this group has the only legacy talent to do the job.

That's about it for now. SET

t t I

I Maneuver Training

-- (Loss) Relocate Armor Center and School from Fort Knox to Fort Benning

Position: Concur with Considerations

Considerations: 1. Definition of the Maneuver Center of Excellence 1 recommendati 2. Fort Knox has capacity to handle USAARMC and IBCT 3. Fort Benning capacity to absorb future training requirements (rar training areas, maneuver areas, motor pools, etc.)

on merit

1ges,

t Maneuver Training

-- (Gain) Activate an Infantry Brigade Combat Team and supporting units on Fort Knox (includes overseas returnees)

Position: Concur

Impact: 1. Range and training complex is premier to support requirements (no issues) 2. Barracks I MP complex needs to be constructed 1 renovated - new MILCON 3. Phasing of out-bound and in-bound units is critical; have limited space now

I Fort Monmouth, NJ

-- (Loss) Relocate Army Research Institute Human System Research from Fort Knox to Aberdeen Proving Ground

Position: Non-Concur

Impact: 1. ARI supports AAC and HRC which are moving to Fort Knox; stay co-located 2. ARI training research program requires assets to co-locate with an operational unit; stationing of the IBCT at Fort Knox would require an ARI presence

I

-- (Gain)

Fort Monroe, VA

Relocate the Army Accessions Command and Cadet Command from Fort Monroe to Fort Knox

Position: Concur

Impact: No significant adverse impacts

i USAR Command and Control - Southeast

-- (Gain) Relocate Louisville Army Reserve Center and 1 OOth Division (IT) from Louisville to Fort Knox

Position: Concur

Impact: No significant adverse impacts; will require modernization of existing facilities (SRM)

t I

Relocate Army Headquarters and t

I

-- (Gain) Relocate Center for Substance Abuse to Fort Knox from Falls Church

Position: Concur

Impact: No significant adverse impacts

I Implementation Timelines

I FY08 I Louisville Reserve Center / USAARMC Move 100th Division Consolidation 1 *YO8

Infantry BCT Activation

I FYO9 I HR Center of Excellence 84th ARRTC Move Consolidation I FY09

FY 06 Return of Forces from

Overseas FY 06-09

MPTR. (MODIFIED). STEELES * , +y' ' IET RANGES LIPGRADE PH-II *P . I

&? $ IlRRAN ASAl rLT C'OITRSE h w ~ 1

7$&

A RF UPC RAI)E, WOOD RANGE. $$. 1 DW'RC UPGRADE,\ A N 0 :%: : i -+-. MG TRANSITION, LONGSTREET &&

I MOVT EXPANSION, ZIISS\lAN k",%

::%4 ~ URBAN SHOOT HOlrSE !y DMPTR I'PCRADE, CEDAR CREEK * * *

I * - MOUT RRFACH COIIRSE

IET RANGm llPGRADE PH-111

IBMAII IJPGRADE, MORGAN B REILEY

INFANTRY SQUAD RATTLE COlfRSE

RANGE OPER4TIONSmfAmTENANCE RLM;.

IMPROVE DENSBERCER RASE W M P

DEPFNSlVE FIRE, RE% EASY GAP DEFENSE

CPQC, BROWN RANGE

hlG. CIL\NE I

STATIOVARY TAhK GUNNERY RANGE. MFO ' I*

This is why we're here...don't forget it!

w Base Closure and Realignment Commission ltinerarv for Fort Knox Visit 26 Mav 05

By ~ommissioher Skinner and commissioner Turner White =Commissioners Skinner & Turner / --BRAC Commission Analysts at Ft Knox: Mike Avenick and Don Manuel.

I

I Italics = Commissioner Skinner / --Fort Knox:: MG Terry ~ucker , Armor Center & Installation Commander I Gray = Commi! TIME

ioner Turner EVENT

I --Fort Knox POC & Escort: COL Keith Arm LOCATION L V Chicago OHare 0800- HRS, AAM071, AR Analysts Mike Louisville 1012 HRS Avenick, Don LV St Louis 0845 HRS, Manuel SWA#636, AR Louisville --Ft Knox Escort

:rong, Garrison Commander ACTION Meet Commissioners at 26 May 1075 Commissioner

Skinner Arrives Airport

Commissioner Turner Arrives

1 045 H RS' COL Armstrong To Fort Knox En route Commissioners Review

/ Don Manuel, COL Proposed Itinerary & Briefing Book Informal Discussion of 8 BRAC Recommendations' I

Lunch Hosted by MG Terry Tucker Ft Knox Briefing to Commissioners

Fort Knox Leaders Club, Bullion Room

Fort Knox USAARMC Headquarters, Bldg 1101 Armstrong

Armstrong MG Terry Tucker, Armor Center

Effects on Ft Knox Installation Overview. Presentations on 8 I

recommendation's that effect Ft Knox

Break -.

affected Mounted Urban Trainins 1 Mike A venick, 1 Commissioner's sues.tions facilities - (MOUTj & Wilcox Multi-

Ft Knox cantonment area tour Visits to

L V Louisvillel8O7 HRS, AAM384 to Chicago OHare --COM Turner to Ireland Army Hospital & medical facilities

--Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner Turner Ft Knox cantonment area --COM Skinner to Zussman

training ranges En route

Mike Avenick, t-----

, a

Don Manuel / Commissioners' questions COL Armstrong, 1 Windshield tour & response to

I questions

COL Armstrong, Mike Avenick.

Purpose Range Complexes Louisville Airport

Commissioner Skinner Departs 4ffected facility tisits-hospital

Windshield tour of Ft Knox cantonment area. res~ond to

Hospital Commander: Don

COL Armstrong,

Visit to affected medical facilities, answer I

Commissioner's questions ~

Response to Commissioner's

Response to Commissioner's , questions

f n route Louisville Airport Mike Avenick, Don Manuel

Zommissioner rurner Departs

LV Louisville 1716 HRS, AA#2473 to DallasIFt Worth

I I

List of attendees (20 MAX) for 26 May 2005 lunch hosted by MG Tucker, Fort Knox Installation Commander include:

Miiitarv Officials MG Tucker, USAAMRC Commandinq General COL Gold, USAARMC Chief of staff- COL Armstrong, USAG Fort Knox, Garrison Commander CSM DeSario, USAARMC CSM Sara Johnson, USAG, Director, Plans Analysis and Integration Emmet Holley, USAG, Garrison Deputy I-ferv Mastin, installation Management Agency Southeas: Region Office

BRAC Commission Mike Avenick, BRAC Commission Analyst Don Manuel, BRAC Commission Analyst Commissioner Skinner Cnmmisc!nr-!or Turner

Guests Invited by MG Tucker Larry Cox, Senator McConnel s office John Salyers, Senator Bunning s office Philip Hays, Congressmen Lewis office Mayor Sheila Enyart, Radcliff, Kentucky (city adjacent to Fort Knox) Mayor David Wilmoth, Elizabethtown, Kentucky (city in close proximity to Fort Knox) Judge Executive Harry Berry, Hardin County (county on southern border of Fort Knox) Steve Montgomery, Association of the US Army Don Williams, COL (Retired), Association of the US Army Bill Barron, MG (Retired), Association of the US Army

I Center & School To Ft Benning

1 \ GAINS

I] LOSSES

Lose Correctional Facility to Ft Leavenworth

Lose Inpatient Hospital,

Convert to Clinic

Lose Army Research

Institute to APG

Fort Knox Commissioner Visit 26 May 2005

Supplemental Questions Related to the 8 Recommendations Effecting Fort Knox

Recommendation

Maneuver Training

Convert Inpatient Services to Clinics

Fort Monmouth, NJ

I Consolidate Correctional Facilities Fort Monroe, VA

Consolidate Personnel & Recruiting Centers USAR

Relocate Field Operating Agencies

Question

RE: Relocation of Armor School to Ft Benning. Does the Armor Center believe it will be able to continue to accomplish its mission at Ft Benning?

RE: Activating BCT & accepting overseas units at Ft Knox. Does Ft Knox expect any capacity or timing problems associated with activating a BCT or receiving overseas units?

RE: Relocation of USAR's 84th regional training center to Ft Knox. Does Ft Knox have the capacity to support this training load and mission? RE: Reduction of Ft Knox hospital's inpatient capacity. This recommendation appears to reduce medical care for the Ft Knox military community. Will adequate medical care continue to be available? RE: An Army Research Institute element is located at Ft Knox and has

is moving to Aberdeen Proving ~ r o u n d s . Will Ft Knox's missions be adversely affected by this move? RE: Ft Knox's correctional facility consolidates into Ft Leavenworth. Are there any significant issues associated with this planned relocation? RE: Relocation to Ft Knox of the Accessions and Cadet commands. Portions of these organizations are already at Ft Knox. Are there problematic issues with this consolidation? RE: Relocation to Ft Knox of the Human Resources Command. Is this large influx into Ft Knox of over 2000 civilians and over 600 military personnel manageable as planned? RE: Relocation of USAR looth Division (Institutional Training) from Louisville, KY to Ft Knox. Many of the soldiers of this unit are already train at Ft Knox. How will this consolidation at Ft Knox facilitate regional active and reserve component training? RE: Relocation to Ft Knox of HRCs Substance Abuse Center. This ~ f f i c e is consolidating with HRC at Ft Knox. Are there any Ft Knox issues with this recommendation?

Deliberate Document - For Discussion Purpose Only - Do Not release Under FOIA

COBRA TOTAL PERSONNEL SUMMARY REPORT (COBRA v6.10) Data As Of 04/20/2005 11:39:58 AM, Report Created 04/20/2005 11:40:03 AM

Department : Army Scenario File : J:\RECOMMENDATION DEVELOPMENT\REVIEW FINAL\USA-O~I~R Close Ft. Monroe\Criterion 5- 0113R Close Ft. Monroe.CBR Option Pkg Name: Close Ft. Monroe Std Fctrs File : D:\Army COBRA 6.10\BRAC2005.SFF

TOTAL SCENARIO POPULATION (FY 2005): Officers Enlisted Students - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2,407 11,176 11,076

TOTAL PROGRAMMED INSTALLATION (NON-BRAC) CHANGES, ENTIRE SCENARIO: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Officers -28 8 0 0 0 0 -20 Enlisted -120 23 0 0 0 0 -97 Students -442 65 0 0 0 0 -377 Civilians - 1 0 0 0 0 0 - 1 TOTAL -591 9 6 0 0 0 0 -495

TOTAL SCENARIO POPULATION (FY 2005, Prior to BRAC Action): Officers Enlisted Students Civilians

TOTAL PERSONNEL REALIGNMENTS, ENTIRE SCENARIO) : 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Officers 0 11 606 0 0 0 617 Enlisted 0 16 483 0 0 0 499 Students 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 Civilians 0 35 1,612 0 0 0 1,647 TOTAL 0 62 2,721 0 0 0 2,783

TOTAL SCENARIO POSITION CHANGES, ENTIRE SCENARIO: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Officers 0 -16 -63 0 0 0 -79 Enlisted 0 -35 -143 0 0 0 -178 Civilians 0 -51 -250 0 0 0 -301 TOTAL 0 -102 -456 0 0 0 -558

TOTAL SCENARIO POPULATION (After BRAC Action): Officers Enlisted Students - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2,308 10,901 10,699

Deliberate Document - For Discussion Purpose Only - Do Not release Under FOIA USA-0113R Close Ft. Monroe.doc Page 47 of 51


COBRA PERSONNEL IMPACT REPORT (COBRA v6.10) - Paae 5/5 Data As Of 04/20/2005 11:39:58 AM, Report Created 04/20/2605 11:40:03 AM

DeDartment : Armv scenario File : J:\~ECOMMENDATION DEVELOPMENT\REVIEW FINAL\USA-0113R Clqse Ft. Monroe\Criterion 5-COBRA\USA- 0113R Close Ft. Monroe.CBR Option Pkg Name: Close Ft. Monroe Std Fctrs File : D:\Army COBRA 6.10\B~AC2005.SF~

Base: KNOX, ICY (21478) Rate - - - -

CIVILIAN POSITIONS REALIGNING OUT Early Retirement* 8.10% Regular Retirement* 1.67% Civilian Turnover* 9.16% Civs Not Moving (RIFs) * 6.00% Civilians Moving (the remainder) Civilian Positions Available

CIVILIAN POSITIONS ELIMINATED Early Retirement 8. Regular Retirement 1. Civilian Turnover 9. Civs Not Moving (RIFs) * 6. Priority Placement# 39. Civilians Available to Move Civilians Moving Civilian RIFs (the remainder)

Total - - - - -

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CIVILIAN POSITIONS REALIGNING IN 0 2 183 0 0 0 185 Civilians Moving 0 2 183 0 0 0 185 New Civilians Hired 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Civilian Additions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL CIVILIAN EARLY RETIRMENTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CIVILIAN RIFS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CIVILIAN PRIORITY PLACEMENTS# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - TOTAL CIVILIAN NEW HIRES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

* Early Retirements, Regular Retirements, Civilian Turnover, and Civilians Not Willing to Move are not applicable for moves under fifty miles.

# Not all Priority Placements involve a Permanent Change of Station. The rate of PPP placements involving a PCS is 50.70%



COBRA PERSONNEL IMPACT REPORT (COBRA v6.10) - Page 4/5 Data As Of 04/20/2005 11:39:58 AM, Report Created 04/20/2005 11:40:03 AM

Department : Army Scenario File : J:\RECOMMENDATION DEVELOPMENT\REVIEW FINAL\USA-0113R Close Ft. Monroe\Criterion 5-COBRA\USA- 0113R Close Ft. Monroe.CBR Option Pkg Name: Close Ft. Monroe Std Fctrs File : D:\Army COBRA 6.10\BRAC2005.SFF

Base: BASE X (ARMY), US (XARMY)Rate - - - -

CIVILIAN POSITIONS REALIGNING OUT Early Retirement* 8.10% Regular Retirement* 1.67% Civilian Turnover* 9.16% Civs Not Moving (RIFs)* 6.00% Civilians Moving (the remainder) Civilian Positions Available

CIVILIAN POSITIONS ELIMINATED 0 0 0 0 0 0 Early Retirement 8.10% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Regular Retirement 1.67% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Civilian Turnover 9.16% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Civs Not Moving (RIFs) * 6.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Priority Placement# 39.97% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Civilians Available to Move 0 0 0 0 0 0 Civilians Moving 0 0 0 0 0 0 Civilian RIFs (the remainder) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total


TOTAL CIVILIAN EARLY RETIRMENTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CIVILIAN RIFS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CIVILIAN PRIORITY PLACEMENTS# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CIVILIAN NEW HIRES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0





COBRA PERSONNEL IMPACT REPORT (COBRA v6.10) - Page 3/5

~'lllrrl Data As Of 04/20/2005 11:39:58 AM, Report Created 04/20/2005 11:40:03 AM

- Department : Army Scenario File : J:\RECOMMENDATION DEVELOPMENT\REVIEW FINAL\USA-0113R Close Ft. Monroe\Criterion 5-COBRA\USA- 0113R Close Ft. Monroe.CBR Option Pkg Name: Close Ft. Monroe Std Fctrs File : D:\Army COBRA 6.10\BRAC2005.SFF

Base: EUSTIS, VA (51281) Rate 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CIVILIAN POSITIONS REALIGNING OUT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Early Retirement* 8.10% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Regular Retirement* 1.67% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Civilian Turnover* 9.16% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Civs Not Moving (RIFs) * 6.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Civilians Moving (the remainder) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Civilian Positions Available 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CIVILIAN POSITIONS ELIMINATED 0 0 0 0 0 0 Early Retirement 8.10% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Regular Retirement 1.67% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Civilian Turnover 9.16% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Civs Not Moving (RIFs) * 6.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Priority Placement# 39.97% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Civilians Available to Move 0 0 0 0 0 0 Civilians Moving 0 0 0 0 0 0 Civilian RIFs (the remainder) 0 0 0 0 0 0

CIVILIAN POSITIONS REALIGNING IN 0 141,354 0 0 0 1,368 Civilians Moving 0 14 1,354 0 0 0 1,368 New Civilians Hired 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Civilian Additions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL CIVILIAN EARLY RETIRMENTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CIVILIAN RIFS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CIVILIAN PRIORITY PLACEMENTS# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CIVILIAN NEW HIRES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0





COBRA PERSONNEL IMPACT REPORT (COBRA ~6.10) - Page 2/5 Data As Of 04/20/2005 11:39:58 AM, Report Created 04/20/2005 11:40:03 AM

Department : A m y Scenario File : J: \RECOMMENDATION DEVELOPMENT\REVIEW FINAL\USA-0113R Close Ft . Monroe\Criterion 5 -COBM\USA- 0113R Close Ft. Monroe.CBR

Option Pkg Name: Close Ft. Monroe Std Fctrs File : D:\Army COBRA 6.10\BRAC2005.SFF

Base: MONROE, VA (51585) Rate - - - -

CIVILIAN POSITIONS REALIGNING OUT Early Retirement* 8.10% Regular Retirement* 1.67% Civilian Turnover* 9.16% Civs Not Moving (RIFs)* 6.00% Civilians Moving (the remainder) Civilian Positions Available

Total

CIVILIAN POSITIONS ELIMINATED 0 51 250 0 0 0 301 Early Retirement 8.10% 0 4 20 0 0 0 2 4 Regular Retirement 1.67% 0 1 4 0 0 0 5 Civilian Turnover 9.16% 0 5 23 0 0 0 28 Civs Not Moving (RIFs) * 6.00% 0 3 15 0 0 0 18 Priority Placement# 39.97% 0 20 100 0 0 0 120 Civilians Available to Move 0 18 88 0 0 0 106 Civilians Moving 0 5 65 0 0 0 70 Civilian RIFs (the remainder) 0 13 23 0 0 0 36


TOTAL CIVILIAN EARLY RETIRMENTS 0 6 41 0 0 0 47 TOTAL CIVILIAN RIFS 0 17 54 0 0 0 7 1 TOTAL CIVILIAN PRIORITY PLACEMENTS# 0 20 100 0 0 0 120 TOTAL CIVILIAN NEW HIRES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




0 At Tab 11 we have the next installation to be discussed, Fort Monroe, Virginia

0 Fort Monroe was added for further consideration on May 21st

0 slide 71 pictorially shows option under consideration DISCUSS

0 slide 72 shows the relative location of Fort Monroe and Fort Eustis

Bud Bale will discuss this recommendation

Fort Monroe, Virginia

Commissioner Add for Consideration: Study for closure due to excess capacity.

Visiting Comn~issioner: Commissioner Byron

Category: Command andcontrol

LAND (Acres)

570

11 (%) I ($ M) 1 Construction Per Diem I Officer Enlisted) 11 PERMANENT FACILITIES

BUILDINGS (Million Square Feet)

1.99

ANNUAL OPERATLNG COST

ONE TIME COSTS ( $ h ~ Construction Housing

70.3 (127.9) 41.9 (91.1) 1.6 (2.0)

FAMILY HOUSING (Units)

1,007

PERSONNEL Mil S tu Civ

826 3 3 1,714

COST FACTORS

STEADY STATE SAVINGS ($MI

31.8 (19.3)

VHA

BREAK EVEN YEAR

2000 (2008) YEAR 7 (YEAR 15)

ECONOMIC IMPACT (%) 93 Cumulative

- 0 - 6.1

Fort Monroe, VA - -

ISSUE

OPERATIONAL

ECONOMICS O F MOVE

ECONOMIC IMPACT

ENVIRONMENTAL

DoD POSITION

WOULD DISRUPT RESTRUCTURING OF COMBAT DEVELOPMENT, DOCTRINE, AND TRAINING SUPPORT SYSTEMS

WOULD DISRUPT INTERNAL COMMAND MANAGEMENT REORGANIZATION

CURRENT LOCATION PROVIDES FOR JOINT ACTIVITY

ARMY EXPRESSED CONCERN WITH HIGH COST OF CLEANUP - ONE FACTOR IN DEFERRAL DECISION

UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE IS NOT A PROBLEM UNTIL AKMY LEAVES

POTENTIAL HIGH COST OF CLEANUP (UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE)

COMMUNITY POSITION

SUPPORTS KEEPING TRADOC IN THE COMMUNITY

HIGH COST TO PROVIDE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP SUPPORTS KEEPING ARMY AT FT. MONROE

COMBINATION OF CLOSING OTHER INSTALLATIONS REPRESENTS THREAT TO STATE ECONOMY

STRESSES INSTALLATION REVERTS BACK TO STATE WHEN NO LONGER USED FOR DEFENSE

EXPECTS LAND TO BE TURNED BACK HAZARD FREE

R&A STAFF FINDINGS

MOVE IS ONLY 20 MILES NO PROGNOSIS ON END OF

FORCE STRUCTURE DECISIONS TRADOC WILL REMAIN IN

AREA AND AVAILABLE FOR JOINT ACTIVITIES

WELL DEVELOPED MOVEMENT PLAN WOULD DECREASE OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS

VACATES SINGLE PURPOSE INSTALLATION

UTILIZES EXCESS CAPACITY AT ANOTHER INSTALLATION

TRUE EXTENT OF CLEANUP COSTS UNKNOWN BUT NOT A CONSIDERATION

ECONOMIC IMPACT LIMITED AS MAJORITY OF UNITS STAY IN THE AREA

- -

MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED ANYWAY

POTENTIAL REQUIREMENT TO ADD COST OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIG TO ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP COST

TRUE MAGNITUDE OF CLEANUP AND EXTENT OF COSTS NOT KNOWN

e yC-

Sce~lario Sum~nary Fort Monroe, VA

SCENARIO I --

CLOSE FORT MONROE. MOVE TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND AND THE RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS CADET COMMAND TO FORT EUSTIS, VIRGINIA

ONE-TIME COSTS: $ 127.9 MILLION STEADY STATE SAVINGS: $ 19.2 MILLION BREAK EVEN YEAR: 2008 (YEAR 15)

1 PRO

PROVIDES THE GREATEST SAVING IN THE LONG RUN

CLOSES A SINGLE PURPOSE INSTALLATION

UTILIZES EXCESS SPACE ON OTHER INSTALLATIONS

KEEPS TRADOC IN AREA FOR JOINT ACTIVITY WITH AIR COMBAT COMMAND, CINCLANT AND THE FUTURE JCS JOINT WARFARE CENTER

CON

DISRUPTION OF HEADQUARTERS ACTIVITY DURING MOVE

POTENTIAL LONG PAY BACK PERIOD (ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP)

MAY INTERFERE WITH FUTURE ARMY PLAN TO CONSOLIDATE CSS TRAINING

-

SCENARIO I1

THAT FORT MONROE REMAIN OPEN.

ONE-TIME COSTS: STEADY STATE SAVINGS: BREAK EVEN YEAR:

PRO

AVOIDS CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES AT FT. EUSTIS

AVOIDS COSTS OF MOVE AVOIDS TURBULENCE IN

HEADQUARTERS DUE TO A MOVE

KEEPS ARMY PRESENCE ON A NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK

KEEPS TRADOC IN AREA FOR JOINT ACTIVITY WITH AIR COMBAT COMMAND, CINCLANT AND THE FUTURE JCS JOINT WARFARE CENTER

NONE

CON

FAILS TO CLOSE A SINGLE PURPOSE INSTALLATION

FAILS TO CAPITALIZE ON EXCESS SPACE ON ANOTHER INSTALLATION

NO LONG TERM SAVINGS

Issues Fort Monroe, VA

(Continued)

ISSUE

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION

DoD POSITION

MOVE WOULD PREVENT CONSOLIDATION OF COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT TRAINING

COMMUNITY POSITION

NONE

R&A STAFF FINDINGS

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT TRAINING CONSOLIDATION IS ONLY UNDER STUDY

Fort Monroe, VA:

DoD Recommendation -- none. Alternative Motion [Close Ft. Monroe, VA. Move to Ft. Eustis.]:

I move that the omm mission find that the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from criteria 1 and 2, and, therefore, that the Commission adopt the following recommendation: Close Fort Monroe and relocate Training and Doctrine Command and Reserve Officers Training Corps Cadet Command to Fort Eustis, Virginia. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

Motion IElh 'AYEm

'NAYm El

JOWIDY BYROW STUART MURTER WHERSOY COX BOUlAW

Virginia

DoD Recommendation

None. Commissioner add for further consideration.

Draft c om mission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from criteria 1 and 2. The Commission, therefore, recommends the following: Close Fort Monroe and relocate Training and Doctrine Command and Reserve Officers Training Corps Cadet Command to Fort Eustis, Virginia. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

10-May-05 BRAC 2005 -- Army Cumulative Environmental Impacts Summary By Installation Page 40 of 43

critical habitat for a threatened and endangered species is found on Fort Lee, it restricts less than 3% of the installation's total land. This installation has jurisdictional wetlands that restrict operations. Additional operations may impact wetlands, which may lead to further operations restrictions. No adverse impact to any other environmental resource area is expected. lmpacts of costs include $1020000 in costs for waste management and environmental compliance. These costs were included in the payback calculation.

FORT MONROE, VA USA-01 13R Fort Monroe, VA Close

BRAC actions result in the closure of Fort Monroe. Due to the presence of a significant number of historical properties and one archeological site at Fort Monroe, closure of this installation will necessitate consultations with the State Historic Preservation Ofice to ensure that historic properties are continued to be protected. Fort Monroe has a probable Military Munitions Restoration Program site (Fort Monroe moat containing munitions and explosives of concern (MEC)), that may require some combination of MEC sweeps, clearance, munition constituent cleanup, remediation, and land use controls. No adverse impact to any other environmental resource area is expected. Though no costs are currently associated with remaining restoration activities, costs are likely. The Department has a legal obligation to perform environmental restoration regardless of whether an installation is closed, realigned, or remains open. This recommendation does not otherwise impact the costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. lmpacts of costs include $1300000 in costs for waste management and environmental compliance. These costs were included in the payback calculation.

FORT MYER, VA HSA-0010Rv2 Establish Joint Bases Gain

BRAC actions result in no change in personnel and no new construction. Fort Myer is only gaining an installation management responsibility. No impact to any environmental resource area is expected.

HOFFMAN LEASE, VA HSA-0069~2 Close Misc Army Leases NCR Loss HSA-0092Rv2 Relocate Army Headquarters and Field Operating Agencies Loss HSA-0114Rv4 TRANSCOM Components to Scott Loss HSA-0145~2 Roll-up Mil Pers & Rec Ctrs for AR & AF Loss

BRAG actions move personnel away from this leased site. There is no environmental impact expected since bldglfacility owner is responsible for environmental compliance and impacts.

ROSSLYN LEASE, VA HSA-0031~2 Consolidate CPOs LOSS HSA-0069~2 Close Misc Army Leases NCR Loss HSA-0092Rv2 Relocate Army Headquarters and Field Operating Agencies Loss

BRAC actions move personnel away from this leased site. There is no environmental impact expected since bldglfacility owner is responsible for environmental compliance and impacts.

AFRC RUTLAND, VT USA-0239 RC Transformation in VT Gain

This recommendation has no impact on air quality, cultural, archeological, or tribal resources; dredging; land use constraints or sensitive resource areas; marine mammals, resources, or sanctuaries; noise; threatened and endangered species or critical habitat; waste management; water resources; or wetlands. lmpacts of costs include $5000 in costs for waste management and environmental compliance. These

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY . - ~ C A O U I I ~ I trns v m l r c o s i ~ r c o c m r r mamma AMJ D O C T ~ I N C c o u u r w o

r0nT YOUIIOC. VIIOWIA I Y I ! . M ~ I

etrt- ro *mv-** w J u n e 1 8 , 1 9 9 3 1

-- M r . Bud B a l e BRAC C o m m i s s i o n

1 D e a r M r . Bale: ,

Pursuant t o y o u r r e q u e s t , I a m w r i t i . n g t o p r o v i d e you w i t h infor-111tt t ion c o n c e r n i n g v a r i o u s c u l t u r a l resource l owe which would i a f f e c t - a n e x c a v a t i o n f o r u n e x p l o d e d o r d n a n c e a t F o r t Monroe. AG I

y o u a r e a w a r e , t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n i s a N a t i o n a l Historic Landmark 1 ( N H L ) . F o r t Monroe was o n e o f t h e f i r s t l a n d i n g p l a c e 8 o f t h o f J a m e s t o w n s e t t l e r s i n 1 6 0 7 . A smal l f o r t i f i c a t i o n w a n b u i l t n t t h e i n s t a l l a c i o n i n 1 6 0 9 . 1 1 i i L i a l p l a n s f o r t h e p r e s o n t F o r t 1

Monroe w e r e f o r m u l a t e d a f t e r t h e W a r of 1 8 1 2 and the i n s t a l l a t i o n has been c u n L i n u o u s l y f o r t i f i e d s i n c c 1 8 2 3 . The m o s t historically significant e v e n t s t o o c c u r h e r e were d u r i n g t h e C i v i l War. Due t o t h e p r e s e n c e of humans a t t h i s l o c a t i o r l f o r c e n t u r i e s , h i s t o r i c a l a r t i f a c t s a r e f r e q u e r ~ t l y u n e a r t h e d . I t i s oyr p o s i t i o n t h a t a n y e x c a v a t i o n f o r u n e x p l o d e d o r d n a n c e a t Fort Monroe w o u l d Le a ~ - c h a e o l o g i c a l l y i m p e d e d .

T h e N a t i o n a l H i s t u r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n Act of 1 9 G G (NHPA), 1 6 U.S.C. 4 7 0 h - 2 ( a ) ( l ) , p r o v i d e 6 t h a t h e a d s o f a l l f e d e ~ . a l a g e n c i e s

- - s h a l l a s s u m e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n of h i s t o r i c p r o p e r t i e s w h i c h a r e owned o r c o n t r o l l e d b y s u c h a g e n c y . T h e t e r m " h i s t o r i c p r o p e r t y " 1 s d e f i n e d a t 32 C . F . R . 8 0 0 . 2 a s a n y p r e h i s t o r i c o r h i s t o r i c d i s t r i c t , s i t e , b u i l d i n g , s ~ r u c t u r e , q~ o b i e c t i n c l u d e d i n , o r e l i g i b l e f o r i n c l u s i o n i n , t h e N a t i o n a l R e g i s t e r . T h e t e r m i n c l u d e s a r t i f a c t s , r e c o r d s , a r ~ d t h a t are r e l a t ed t o and l o c a t e d w i t h i n s u c h properties.

A t 1 6 U . S . C . 470h-2(f), t h e NHPA p r o v i d e s that p r i o r to* t h e a p p r o v a l of e d e r a l u n d e r t a k i n g which may d i r e c t l y a n d

t h e head ot t h e r e s p v n v i b l e fedcra e x t e n t p o s s i b l c , u n d e r t a k e sugh

p l a n n i n g a n d a c t i o n s a s may be necessary t o m i n l m i z e lla~m t o s u c h l a n d m a r k , a n d shall a f f o r d t h e A d v i s o r y L o u n c i l on H i s to r i c

Pre8ervation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking. An undertaking is defined at 32 C.F.R. 800.2 as any project, activity, or program that can reault in changoe in the character or use of historFc proper~~as. Pureuant to 32 C.F.R. 800.9(b), a? und~ttak~ri~ is considered to hsvc an adverne effect when t h e effect on a historlc p r o p c r t y may dirninioh the integrity - - - - of c h e property's location, design, setting, mat.eri.als, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverve effecto on historic properties include, - but are not I - i m i t e d Lo, physical destruct.ion, damaqe, or alTeratiori uf all or part of thc property and tsansfer, leaie, ur sale of the proper~y. Finally, i t should be noted that 32-C. F. R. 800.12 states that the ACHP is t.n q i ve special consideration to protecting NHLS.

The Arch~eologrcal Resources P r o t e c L i u r i A c C of 1979 ( A R F A ) , 16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm, was pdused, In part, to ensurc ~hc.protection of archaeulogical resources and sites which d r u on p u b l i c lande. The term "archaeological resource" includes, but i u rrot 1 imited to, pottery, basketry, bottles, W ~ ~ I J O I I R , weapon projectiles, - tools, structures or portions of struc~ures, graves, human skeletal materials, or any portlori u r piece of any of the foregoing (16 U.S.C. 470bb). No i t e m is t v LC t reated as an .

archaeological resource, howcvcr, unless it is at least-100 years old. The ARPA, at 16 U.S.C. 470ee, provides that. no person may

* excavate, remov,e, damage, or otherwise alter or deface, any i archaeological resource located on public l a r ~ d unless - d p e r m i t has been obtained. Criminal and clvil pellalLies exist for violations of thls ldw. It should be n;Led, however, that 3 2 C.F.R. 229.5, provides that n permit is rcqulred under t h e ARPA for any person conducting activities on public land when t h o e e activities are exclusively for purposes other than thFexcavation an-oval of archaeoLoqica1 reauurces, even though those actlvlties miqhc incidentally result i r ~ ~ 1 1 e disturbance of archaeologrcai resources. he e x c e ~ t i o l l does not, however, affect the res~onsibility to com~lv with other authorities which protect archaeoloaical resources ( e . g . NHPA). Any e x c a v e t i o n and/or removal of archaeological resources required for compliance with t h e NHPA must be conducted in avuurddriue with the permlt requirements of the ARPA. Theue requirements are locatcd at 16 U.S.C. 470cc and 32 C.F.R. 229.6, and 2 2 9 . 8 - 9 .

In a convcrsacion with Ms. Phyllis Sprock, Environmental Coordinator, Fort Monroe, she indicated t - h e r e is no need for on ~rchaeological excavation or the installation at L ~ I ~ S Lillie s k c c w-s on what exists are su uulapleLe. All historical sites are already mapped. An Arc&aeoloqicill R e s o u a s '?rot- PJan does exist and is complied with whenever any d i y g i n g is done on the installation.

1 hope t h i s has answered further assistance, please

t h e q u e s t i o n s you had. d o n o t h e ~ i t a t e to c a l l

Sincerely,

If T can me.

J. Joseph Saye . Ma jor, Judge Advoca t-e ~ n v i r o n m e n t a l Law Attorney

Privileged & Confidential Attorney-Work Product

Draft June 10, 1993

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Sheila Cheston

FROM : Marni Langbert

Facts:

The Disuosition of Land at Fort Monroe, Va.

According to the various deeds in the report, Historical and Lesal Factors Affectins the Disposition of Fort Monroe, Virsinia, and the letter from the Secretary of the Army, if Fort Monroe is closed then most of the land will revert back to Virginia. In most of the deeds between the USA and Virginia, Virginia has a reversionary interest in the property if it ceases to be used as a military fortress.

Issue: Whether the classification of Fort Monroe as a National Historical Landmark and Virginia's reversionary interest in the property are factors to consider in keeping it opep

Analysis: Ed Brown's opinion:

Virginia wants the base to remain open because they do not want the property to return to them. Virginia does not want the responsibility (especially the financial responsibility) of maintaining this historic property.

Secretary of the Army: The Secretary of the Army, in his explanation for keeping Fort Monroe open, pointed to the issues of Virginia's reversion rights and the fort's historic designation.

Fort Lee, Virginia

Closing Fort Lee would be a mistake economically and operationally. It is the centerpiece of combat service support (CSS) training for the Army with its large and diverse physical plant supporting the Quartermaster School, Combined Arms Support Command, and Logistics Management College. It has unique petroleum and water distribution training facilities, special facilities for parachute packing and repair and a new food training building. The Army is consolidating some CSS training now being performed on other installations to Fort Lee. We are planning to consolidate CSS doctrine and combat and training development at Fort Lee. Since 1991, Fort Lee has been home for the Defense Commissary Agency, moving into new facilities costing $1 1 million. Relocating the tenants of Fort Lee would result in an unacceptable return on investment. There are no alternate locations where these activities could move that would not require substantial construction and renovation. Although it has little maneuver area, a contributing factor to its relatively low military value ranking, the type of training conducted here does not need much maneuver area. The 1988 Commission moved food and supply training from Fort Dix and Fort Jackson to Fort Lee, resulting in the investment of $16 million worth of new facilities there. Due to the above factors, the Army does not consider Fort Lee to be a viable candidate for closure or realignment.

Fort Monroe, Virginia

The Army very carefully considered the possibility of closing Fort Monroe and concluded without reserva- tion that it should remain open at the present time. The Army's senior decision-making groups, the Program & Budget Committee and Select Committee, recommended unanimously that Fort Monroe should remain open. The Secretary of the Army accepted that recommendation with the concurrence of the Chief of Staff. The Army stands by its military judgment and sees no reason to change.

a. Operational. This is the wrong time to move Training & Doctrine Command (TRADOC). Its mission is the heart and soul of the Army. It is in the center of the Army's reshaping efforts and is helping to lead the way for change. Relocation, even to a site only 20 miles away, causes an unacceptable amount of disruption to its mission.

b. Jointness. During this period of increased emphasis on joint operations, it is valuable to have

TRADOC headquarters within a few miles of the Air Combat Command, the Naval Doctrine Command and the new Atlantic Command. In recognition of this fact, the Joint Staff has recommended Fort Monroe as the future home of the Joint Warfare Center.

c. Reversion Riahts. The majority of Fort Monroe was acquired from the Commonwealth of Virginia with a provision for reversion without compensation in the event it is not needed for national defense. This includes most of the existing improvements on the installation as well as all the existing road access. Much of the property left after this reversion falls in the area designated as National Historic Landmark.

d. Historic Property. In 1961, the majority of Fort Monroe was designated as a National Historic Landmark. The Army has exercised responsible steward- ship over this historic area and has a legal obligation to maintain the installation commensurate with its status until another Federal, State or civilian agency assumes responsibility for preservation. In return, a strong link to the Nation's and the Army's heritage is preserved for future generations. Additionally, retaining TRADOC at Fort Monroe makes use of the land while preserving this landmark.

e. Unexploded Ordnance. There is an extensive amount of unexploded ordnance at a shallow depth in many places on Fort Monroe. The area along the beach at the northern end of the installation (the only area of the installation outside the National Historic Landmark area) was a long-standing impact area. DoD remains liable for any future cleanup costs associated with the removal of unexploded ordnance. This is not a wise use of our resources when DoDts budget is declining, and funds are available for only the most essential of our national security needs.

f. Environmental. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act places severe limits on development. Much of the property in the area which would not revert to the Commonwealth would not be developable.

g. Economic Analysis. Although closing Fort Monroe produces some savings, they are not sufficient reason alone to justify such a drastic action.

Fort Gillem, Georgia

The Army examined the feasibility of closing Fort Gillem and concluded that the relocation of its activities is too.costly, resulting in an unacceptable return on investment. Fort Gillem has over 2 million square feet of warehouse space used as a distribution center for the Army Air Force Exchange Service. The following activities would have to be relocated: Headquarters, Second Army; Regional Headquarters for the Criminal Investigations Command; Criminal Investi- gation Laboratory; Regional Explosive Ordnance Detach- ment and ammunition storage bunkers; Second Recruiting Brigade; numerous reserve units; and storage facilities for Second Army, Third Army, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Red Cross, and others. Several of these tenants have a regional focus. There are a number of Forces Command activities housed here since there is insufficient space at Fort McPherson. Also, a commissary and exchange located here serve Fort McPherson as well. Fort Gillemls location, in a major transportation hub, contributes greatly to its military value.

Fort McPherson, Georgia

Relocating Forces Command (FORSCOM), Third United States Army and other tenants to another installation is too costly and has an unacceptable return on investment. The Army is planning to build a headquarters for the new Army Reserve Command at Fort McPherson. A new, state-of-the-art headquarters was built for Forces Command less than ten years ago. It cost the Army $68 million for facilities, communications and installed equipment. To replicate it at another location would cost over $91 million today. FORSCOM is in the center of the Army's force restructuring efforts and is leading the way in the management of change for the Army. Relocation at this time would have a damaging

effect on its capabilities at a time the Army can least afford it. While turbulence in the Army is inevitable, stability of command is essential. Fort McPhersonts location, in a.major transportation hub, contributes greatly to its military value.

United States Army Reserve Center Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania

Since this installation houses fewer than 80 personnel, the closure of this site is below the governing threshold for the Base Realignment and Closure Act and is within the discretionary authority of the Secretary of the Army. In response to earlier Congressional inquiries, the Army has already examined this Reserve Center which houses Detachment 1 , 949th Transportation Company (Floating Craft Maintenance), situated on the Delaware River. This Company provides 50% of the Army's tugboat capability. The unit has the unique mission of providing tugboat and barge support in harbors, inland waterways and oceans. It has the capability to move and position barges and other floating equipment, dock and undock ocean-going vessels and assists with fire fighting, salvage, oil spill and drug interdiction operations. There is only one other similar unit in the Army; it is active. While the existing facility needs some improvements, it adequate- ly supports training. A replacement facility at another location would cost $10.2 million; there could be additional costs for piers and dredging. The unit's higher headquarters is near Baltimore in Curtis Bay, Maryland, an overcrowded facility in need of major repair and incapable of accommodating the equipment and personnel assigned to Marcus Hook. The military value of staying at Marcus Hook is that trained marine personnel already reside in the commuting area. Due to a lengthy licensing process, it takes 7-10 years to cultivate trained personnel. If this unit were to relocate, the optimal site would be the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, closed by the 1991 Commission. This decision would need to be amended by the 1993 Commission.

Presidio of Monterey (POM) Annex, California

The 1991 Commission closed Fort Ord; it did not close the Presidio of Monterey, a sub-installation of Fort Ord. Therefore, the Army, as the land-holding executive agent for the Defense Language Institute (DLI), intends to retain minimum essential facilities at Fort Ord, primarily family housing units and self- supporting recreational facilities, needed to support the Presidio of Monterey. If the Presidio were to close, this Annex would close as well. The Army is not interested in, nor can it afford, keeping more than is required to support DoDts presence in the Monterey area. The size of the annex has been scrutinized in every possible way by Forces Command, a special Army Task Force, the Army Audit Agency, the Secretary of the Army and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. It makes considerable economic sense to house military personnel in the Monterey area ourselves, since it would cost DoD an additional $5 million annually in housing allowances for them to live on the expensive local economy. Last month, a Special Task Force on the DLI, chartered by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, visited the area and confirmed the desirability of retaining the Annex as presently configured but indicated that some academic facilities being kept for overflow from D L 1 might no longer be necessary. The Army will consider modifying the size of the annex to reflect any changes in the student load at the DLI.

. - - - - - - r--r- ~t will train, on average, )ut 250 reserve component diers a month," Armstrong d. 'So although we are losing a nificant training base in ms of the ( lSt) brigade and ( 1 6 ~ ~ Cav.) regiment, we'll

1 L--re a small training base component Soldiers

, permanent basis." Relocate the Louisville i. Army Reserve Center 1 100th Division stitutional Training) idquarters to Fort Knox. l'he reserve center and 100th ision Institutional Training dquarters at Bowman Field

I be combined and moved to t Knox. Eelocate the Army Center Substance Abuse to Fort ox. Nhen the media released icipated personnel losses )wing the DoD ouncement, they reported )00 military personnel were ling Knox. If you look at raw numbers, t's probably true," lstrong said, adding that je numbers included the

Staff photos by Sgt. Christopher Fincham MONUMENTS TO ARMOR UNITS PAST AND present surround the Court of Honor at Brooks Field.

?Mfiw a Thursday, May 26, 2005 A3

.- A 'AC: Knox stands to gain from Irn Page A 1

OBIGYN Clinic open, and will continue to engage to p those services open to our munity," he said. lealign the Army ~earch Institute, Human tems Research by mating it to Aberdeen wing Ground, Md. If all that leaves, and Fort IX is going to be okay, what ve get?" Armstrong asked crowd. "Well, here's what .e going to get." ~dditions to Fort Knox: ktablish an infantry :ade combat team. Numbers-wise, the BCT will omewhere between 3,500 4,000 active-duty ionnel, but I do not yet w the make-up of that m)," said Armstrong, who -' +hat information is being

' about the BCT. ~ g n the Army Human

ources Command from uandria, Va., ianapolis, and St. Louis brt Khox. What we call Human mrces Command comes out lexandria, Va., lock, stock, barrel. The Enlisted xds Division comes out of anapolis.. . (and the Army ?me Personnel Command es out of St. Louis," strong said. U1 of the personnel pieces e into Fort Kriox." Lelocate the Army essions Command and ly Cadet Command from t Monroe, Va., to Fort IX.

The commands) will Sine with the U.S. Army uiting Command dquarters, the elements of :ssions Command that are ~ d y here, the ROTC region 's already here, the - " 'qg brigade that is

ere, the Accessions drigade that is already

, (will, together) with the : piece, form the Army's Human Resources Center wellence," Armstrong ained. rhat is positive growth for Knox." elocate the 84th Army erve Readiness Training ter from Fort McCoy, . - . ..*

military student population on post.

"For planning purposes I think it's smart that we just disregard that (student) population for a couple of reasons," he said.

"One, they're only here two to nine months. Two, about 90 percent of them live on post. The vast majority of that 90 percent are privates here for basic training. They rarely get off post, they don't spend much money off post, so really there's no economic value to that training base, with the exception of their parents and family coming in for graduation.

"The largest impact is permanent party people," he said. "If you take all the trainees out.. . all you're talking about is permanent party, cadre, and civilian changes on post."

Armstrong broke down the personnel numbers the following way:

H 10,000 Soldiers are leaving, but that number includes the 7,500 student transient population, which is not counted. That leaves 2,500 permanent party Soldiers slated to depart Fort Knox as a result of the DoD plan.

H Around 5,800 Soldiers are slated to be assigned to Fort Knox. This results in a net growth of 3,500 Soldiers on post, plus family members who will accompany the Soldiers and live on and around post.

H The number of civilian employees leaving as a result of DoD recommendations amounts to about 750. But a predicted 2,500 will be assigned, resulting in a net gain of 1,800.

"Both military and civilians arriving indicate positive growth for the installation and the local community now and into the future," Armstrong said.

Part of that 1,800 personnel civilian growth will be civilians already working on Knox, Armstrong said. .

"Some of you will choose not to leave and go with your jobs in the Armor Center when it is relocated, and you'll become part of this growth population," he said.

"But a good part of this is new people.. . who will come

growth - that's economic . impact."

The numbers do not include contract jobs, which were not considered in the analysis.

Economic impact: "It's growth from a military

perspective to the tune of $100 million of new military construction to be able to handle these recommendations," said Armstrong. "Again, all of these are estimates, but it's about a $250 million a year economic impact on the community."

He also talked aboput the timelines involved with the changes on post.

4 Infantry BCT activation - fiscal 2006.

Armstrong pointed out that the beginning of fiscal 2006 is Oct. 1, 2005.

"You would think that we're going to wait a little while," Armstrong said "No, folks. We're about to embark on a major mission-a major change on the way Fort Knox does business."

Armstrong said he expects the activation to be later in the year.

4 Return of forces from overseas-fiscal 2006-2009.

As the forces return they'll join the infantry BCT, which will fill out the brigade from fiscal 2006-2009.

H USAARMC move-fiscal 2008

H Louisville Reserve Center 1100th Division consolidation-fiscal 2008.

84th ARRTC move - FY 2009

HR Center of Excellence consolidation - FY 2009

"Some of you may say, 'I don't care what you say. I don't care what the numbers are. All you're doing is making me lose my job.'

"I probably had 20 or 30 individuals walk up to me since 10 o'clock (May 13) and say, . 'I've lost my job.'

"My answer back to them is, 'No, you didn't. Are you coming to work Monday? Are you still getting a paycheck? Then you didn't lose your job.'

"And it's our intent-the chain of command-to do everything we can to make sure you don't lose employment."

Armstrong suggested ways that . employees . can

changes changes on post.

Don't panic. The final decision has not been made and no personnel moves will be finalized until BRAC becomes law (in December).

W Attend upcoming personnel briefings and understand the options available.

W Update all installation master plans and facility status documentation.

H Ensure that data is accurate.

H Identify resource requirements early.

H Speak with one voice. Armstrong said that Soldiers should ensure that their personnel records are up to date and talk with branch managers about future PCS actions.

"What does i t mean when I say we're going to do everything we can to take care of the civilian workforce?" asked Armstrong, before going over the following information.

Employee needs are priority.

Every effort will be made to help with transition.

H Special training and employment programs will be utilized.

W Retirement options and benefits will be briefed and used as needed.

H Help from other sources may be needed to aid with the transition effort

Available tools that may be employed, said Armstrong, include:

H Early outs and buyouts; 4 Directed or voluntary

reassignments; W Voluntary change to lower

grades; H Relocation;

Early registration in placement programs;

H Reduction in force; Transition assistance;

H In-service placement (retraining, skills assessment, job fairs, resume prep, counseling); and

Outplacement. Armstrong added that

communication with affected post employees will include periodic Town Hall meetings, updates in the Turret, on the Knoxinfo system, and in the CPAC Bulletin, along with messages from the post chain of

Serving the Fort Knox community since 1948 THURSDAY/May 26, 2005

not finalized "arrison commander explains reality of BRAC By SGT. ZOE MORRIS force has been on Fort Knox TURRET FEATURES EDITOR ... It is incumbent upon [email protected] m those of us who stay here to

Garrison commander col. make sure we don't ever lose Keith Armstrong briefed the history and tradition members of Fort Knox's associated with that civilian commufity May 18' organization and what it's on the meant to Fort Knox. Depart- "But that does not mean ment of Fort Knox is going to come Defense to an end." recornmen- The proposed transfer to dations Benning of the Armor released Center and School will May 13 to include, as named by the the Base study: Realign- H The headquarters ment and element, 16th Calvary Closure Regiment; Cbmmiss- Armstrong lSt Armor Training ion and Brigade; their effects on the post's NCO Academy; future. H Training and Doctrine

Qriefings were held every Combat Development from 1-6 p.m. Directory; . the 3 p.m. briefing, Unit of Action

Armstrong stressed that the Ivbmeuver Battle information he presented, Laboratory; along with what had been ' 1 TRADOC System released about BRAC, were Manager (TSM). simply DoD Realign the Regional recommendations, not final Chnfinement Facility by decisions. relocating it to Fort

"Everything released on Leavenworth, Kan* (May 13) is subject to Realign Ireland Army change," Armstrong said. Community Hos~ital. Tn-

Date post:	25-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phunghanh
View:	217 times
Download:	2 times

,justification: T!lis recorninendation closes Fort Monroe .../67531/metadc24979/m2/1/high... ·...

Documents